President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) early announcement of the referendum questions is certainly a strategic move. Most importantly, he wants to put the US at ease. The two referendum questions have not deviated from US policy, so the US will have no reason to oppose them. Thus, the diplomatic pressure that Taiwan has faced over holding a referendum is relieved.
Although the two referendum questions are neither new nor impressive, the point is that the people of Taiwan can finally vote in a referendum, which is a vital demonstration of the nation's sovereignty. That is why China, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) oppose it.
The KMT and PFP always complain that their motives are being misunderstood, but why do they always side with communist China on the issue of the nation's status and sovereignty?
Take the Referendum Law (公民投票法) for example -- Beijing publicly denounced it as a move to claim independence. The KMT and PFP also criticized it as a violation of the Constitution and tried to resist it in counties ruled by them. We can say that Beijing is an overt villain and the pan-blues are hypocrites. And they work together to prevent Taiwan from holding a referendum.
We can do nothing about opposition from Beijing, nor do we need to. But we can rebuke the pan-blues for their belief that holding a referendum violates the Constitution.
First, the Referendum Law was passed by the legislature after three readings. Commonly referred to as a "defensive" or "peace" referendum," Article 17 entitles the president to initiate a referendum on national security issues, so the referendum can be defensive or offensive in nature. Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) employ the term "peace referendum" to make the mechanism more powerful and flexible in its use.
Second, Article 17 entitles the president to initiate a referendum "whenever the country is faced by an external threat that could interfere with national sover-eignty." So as long as there is a "possibility" of such a threat, the president is entitled to hold a referendum. According to the law, the president has to make the decision on whether a referendum should be held, but this decision has to be approved by the Executive Yuan. So the final decision does not rest on the president's subjective judgment alone -- a check mechanism is still in place. Although, practically speaking, the Executive Yuan's approval is only a procedure, it is not fair to say that law endows the president with dictatorial powers.
According to Article 17, there is no violation of the Constitution in Chen's initiation of a referendum. The KMT and PFP oppose the referendum simply to please China. That's why they make up the excuse about violation of the Constitution. But all they are doing is showing the public who they really are.
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Jennie Shih
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS